Main menu

All Fire and Fury in Ukraine

Exclusive: The still decidedly volatile situation in Ukraine – resulting from another in a long line of U.S.-inspired regime changes that have destabilized the geopolitical landscape over the past few decades – is worth revisiting for a number of reasons. With the fourth anniversary of the coup just passed, the sudden, shock passing of veteran investigative journalist Robert Parry and Consortium News founder/editor also affords even greater impetus for doing so. This is especially given his incisive body of reportage on the crisis since 2014; the larger issue of America’s worsening relationship with Russia; and the geopolitical implications going forward of these developments. Australian blogger Greg Maybury reports.

By Greg Maybury

A Shabby Deck of Political Cards

For those who haven’t seen Ukraine on Fire (UOF), the Oliver Stone-produced documentary on the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, it is not overstating the case to say it’s an essential historical document and one of the most important, insightful political documentaries of recent times. It may also be one of the most portentous.

Quite apart from the illuminating history lesson the film delivers as a backdrop to the current situation in one of Europe’s most pivotal of battlegrounds, there are many takeaways from the film. To begin, it stands as a vital corrective of the disinformation, misinformation, evangelistic doublespeak, ersatz analysis, unadulterated agitprop, and plain old garden-variety groupthink that attended the public discourse on the events and developments in the country, and which ultimately framed most people’s views of the situation. Needless to say, the messages and impressions conveyed by this ongoing, relentless ‘psy-op’ cum fake news onslaught still ‘rules the roost’ in most people’s minds.

Further, the film’s narrative is highly revealing in the manner in which the Western mainstream media (MSM) reported on the events surrounding the turmoil and conflict. In the process it showcases how much the perfidious thought contagion spread by the ever-nefarious neoconservatives and their fellow travelers the liberal interventionists infects U.S. foreign policy, along with the foreign policies of America’s assorted vassal states.

It underscores moreover Russia’s seemingly inexhaustible forbearance with the U.S., which, sans any rational, coherent geopolitical basis for doing so, has been tested beyond reasonable endurance or expectation. This point is rendered especially palpable during the interviews Stone conducts with Russian president Vladimir Putin for UOF. (This is not to mention the actual The Putin Interviews).

At the same time UOF reveals again for those looking America’s recidivistic predisposition for interfering in the affairs of other countries; this is an observation that’s always been evident save for the most preternaturally ignorant, ideologically myopic, or imperially inclined. Given the present zeitgeist as reflected by the headline-hogging “soap-saga” of “Russia-gate” – buttressed by former CIA chief James Woolsey’s whimsically smug concession recently that America interferes in other countries’ affairs “only for a very good cause [and] in the interests of democracy” – this is a reality that cannot be overstated. This is especially so when there are all too few examples where anyone might point to America’s interference actually serving the democratic interests (by any way that might be objectively measured) of any given country one might care to name.

The narrative encompassed by UOF is by extension a serious indictment on President Barack Obama’s handling of the Ukraine situation and his role in the creation of this singularly unholy mess — a prime exemplar of just how chaotic, dysfunctional, indeed war-like, were in large part the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner’s foreign policies. Ukraine on Fire attests unequivocally just how far removed the reality of Obama’s tenure was from his campaign rhetoric.

More broadly, the disaster in Ukraine – as we’ll see still a work in progress even now under his successor, someone who pledged to curtail this direction in U.S. policy making, a promise which in no small measure propelled him into the Oval Office — is one of many that will forever inform people’s views of Number 44’s shop-soiled legacy. As Eric Zuesse noted a year after the coup, Obama employed a tactic of,

“…attacking Russia by using fundamentalist and other conservative extremists in a given Russia-allied nation, so as to turn that…nation away from Russia, and toward America, and then of trying to crush these same right-wing extremists who’ve been so effective in defeating (or at least weakening) the pro-Russian leader in that Russia-allied country. This tactic leaves civil war and enormous bloodshed in the given formerly (or still) Russia-allied nation.”

Three years after Zuesse made this comment, and over one year after Obama left office, that situation to all intents prevails, with few harboring any optimism things are going to get better anytime soon. In fact ominously, quite the opposite scenario is unfolding.

Earlier this year, Gilbert Doctorow reported that a new draft law adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament and awaiting president Petro Poroshenko’s signature, threatens to escalate the Ukrainian conflict into a full-blown war, pitting nuclear-armed Russia against the United States and NATO. “Due to dire economic conditions,” Doctorow says, “Poroshenko and other government officials in Kiev have become deeply unpopular, and with diminished chances for electoral success may see war as politically advantageous.”

As history indelibly reminds us, this is an all too frequently recurring scenario in the conduct of international affairs. In a statement that undercuts much of the furor over the Russia-gate imbroglio, Doctorow observes that in contrast to the image of Trump administration policies being dictated by Moscow as portrayed by proponents of Russia-gate conspiracy theories, “the United States is moving towards deeper confrontation with the Kremlin in the geopolitical hotspot of Ukraine. For its part, the Kremlin has very little to gain and a great deal to lose economically and diplomatically from a campaign now against Kiev. If successful, as likely would be the case given the vast disparity in military potential of the two sides, it could easily become a Pyrrhic victory.” [My emphasis]

Just as ominous is the following. As noted in an Oriental Review op-ed earlier this year, a new neo-Nazi revival is clearly in the offing. This is in a country where fascist/Nazi/extreme right sentiment, especially in the western regions, has a long, storied, and ugly history, one that rarely bubbles far from the surface.

Again, this “ugly history” was laid bare in Ukraine on Fire. After concluding that the current situation in Ukraine is ‘painfully reminiscent’ of Germany in the 1920s, the OR op-ed attributes,

“… poor governance on the heels of a lost war, which – added to the sense of betrayed hopes and the sharp decline in average incomes coupled with rising prices – is all driving a critical mass of the Ukrainian population toward an overwhelming feeling of desperation.” [My emphasis]

In an observation attended by a profound sense of déjà vu for even casual students of history, the op-ed goes on to say that “[A] demand from the public for a ‘strong hand’ – a new, authoritarian ruler – is rapidly coalescing, due to their dissatisfaction with President Poroshenko and all the other jokers they’ve been dealt from that shabby deck of political cards.” According to the op-ed, a man like that already exists in this ‘destitute and disintegrating’ country. Known as the “White Führer” to his comrades-in-arms, this man is Andriy Biletsky, the commander of the Azov Battalion who is making an ever-bigger name for himself in the Ukrainian parliament and across the broader political arena.

Open Season on Russia

Of course all this only serves to highlight the pressures being brought to bear within the country itself; it is also those from without (not entirely unrelated to be sure) that are – or should be — of equal concern. Herein Doctorow again provides an alarming reveal. Although there are indications Washington is ‘fed up’ with the Kiev regime (and as Ukraine on Fire demonstrates conclusively, one it was responsible for installing in the first instance in 2014), he says,

“…the United States has doubled down in its support for a military solution to the conflict. With military trainers now on the ground (does this development itself not have an ominously familiar ring to it?), and the U.S. budgeting $350m for security assistance to Ukraine, Washington has also recently started delivering lethal weapons, including the Javelin anti-tank missile system, free of charge to Kiev.’ [My emphasis].

In a Strategic Culture report, Robert Bridge recently offered an additional reality check on those external pressures. Instead of opting for a more balanced and cooperative foreign policy in its conduct of affairs in Eastern Europe, and specifically in its bilateral relationship with Russia, in his view, it was via the furphy of “Russia[n] aggression” – an allegation he says was “peddled to the unsuspecting masses based on fake news of a Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine and Crimea” – [that] the U.S. and NATO “dropped all pretensions [to cooperation] and declared open season on Russia.” [My emphasis]

This was, he notes, further compounded by assertions Russia manipulated the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and along with Donald Trump’s “empty threat” to pull the pin on NATO if member states did not pony up on additional defense spending, “Eastern Europe has [now] become a veritable hothouse of paranoia-driven militarization.”

Robert Parry appearing in Oliver Stone’s film Ukraine on Fire.

We’ll return to this point later, but some backstory is essential here. Whether one has already seen Ukraine on Fire or not, it now comes complete with a hitherto unexpected layer of revelation and significance, given that the late Consortium News founder and editor Robert Parry is interviewed at length therein. Parry’s appearance in the film, poignantly as it turns out, underscores the man’s trailblazing achievements and his unimpeachable stature within the alternative, independent media cosmos.

For those folks constantly on the lookout for exemplars of journalism’s fundamental values, his input into the film’s narrative is a reminder to us all just how much his political insight and measured analysis will be missed. It goes without saying that those values have themselves been missing in action for some time in our mainstream media, as Parry himself – to his eternal chagrin – was all too aware. This is a state of affairs to which he spent the last two decades of his life exposing via the Consortium News masthead. So much so it seems, there was even some hint (by the man himself as it turns out) that the stress and pressure of being a media outlier had taken its toll and may have been the catalyst for the strokes he had in the weeks before his untimely death.

Yet Parry’s voluminous, in-depth commentary on Ukraine – including his many pieces on the controversy surrounding the still unresolved mystery of the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH-17 in eastern Ukraine in June 2014 (with 38 of my fellow Aussies on board) – was arguably second to none. His fierce, fearless criticism of those engaging in the aforementioned ‘groupthink’ – not just those in and around the Beltway but in the West in general (with as we’ll see my own country being a noteworthy example) – was insightful, along with his own reporting on events and developments as they unfolded over the months and years that followed 2014’s color revolution which culminated in the coup d’état.

Many of Parry’s observations in the film are reflective of, and derived from, that commentary, as those who followed his reporting closely on the Ukraine situation over the years will appreciate. He was acutely aware that one could not have a discussion of the key geopolitical events and developments of our time without some serious examination of the manner in which the corporate media manages (read: “massages”) the narratives that frame the Big Issues therein.

As noted, in this Parry was unremitting in his disdain for those of his fellow “investigative journalists” who had sold their souls for the filthy lucre, the celebrity status, and/or the comfortable, secure tenure at one of the “premium” corporate media marques. To him, at best, they were perception managers; at worst glorified stenographers. (For others perhaps less tactful or more scornful than Parry, they were/are simply “presstitutes”!)

Yet for all that disdain, Parry possibly reserved even greater contempt for the “marques” that employed the “presstitutes”, with the New York Times and the Washington Post being singled out for frequently justified, laser-like reproach. To be sure, that was just with the print media. In this the reporting on the Ukraine crisis provides an exemplar – albeit by no means the only one – of just how self-serving, venal, hypocritical, supercilious, irresponsible, and manifestly dishonest the corporate media were.

And of course they still are, each day sliding further and further into irrelevance as they blithely betray both the hallowed U.S. Constitution and the citizens of the country whose individual and collective interests they are increasingly at pains to validly claim to represent, and whose democratic institutions – along with the rights that are purportedly underwritten by said “institutions” – they are supposed to protect.

‘Shirt-fronting’ the Mainstream Fakery

Such a damning indictment of Western media was brought home in spades in the aftermath of the MH-17 disaster. It was a 60 Minutes Australia report on the tragedy that really got his gander up, and in this writer’s view, rightly so. At the time I was preparing my own take on MH-17, when the 60 Minutes segment aired.

I immediately alerted Bob to the report, knowing full well that given his earlier commentary on the tragedy and his views on MSM reporting in general, he’d be less than impressed with the conclusions they arrived at from their “investigation.” Much of this commentary by 60 Minutes was based on the dubious findings of Bellingcat (aka Eliot Higgins), a self-styled open source ‘citizen journalist’ who claimed to have the ‘skinny’ on who was responsible for the disaster.

Now space prohibits herein a full account of the circumstances surrounding the shoot-down, nor does it lend itself to a ‘blow by blow’ of the ‘argy-bargy’ between the 60 Minutes crew and their much touted source Higgins, and Parry himself. Suffice to say there seemed to be few limits to the indignation the former all managed to muster when the intrepid Consortium Newsman had the temerity to meticulously and relentlessly challenge their account of the tragedy.

(Those unfamiliar with this dust-up – one that perfectly case studies the vast gulf that exists between MSM reportage on MH-17 and that of a respected alternative news outlet – can see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for some of the commentary the ‘stoush’ incited and examples of the tit-for-tat exchanges between the respective antagonists.)

It needs be noted that there was much political capital to be gained by those in Washington and most of America’s allies in the West by blaming Russia for the MH-17 tragedy. The U.S. and said allies had already blamed the crisis in Ukraine that derived from the February 2014 coup on Russian “aggression” and Putin’s purported ambitions to resurrect the Soviet Union. So in one sense it was to be expected they’d seek to capitalize on this disaster by blaming the Russians.

Western leaders to this end began tripping over themselves in singling out ‘Vlad the Derailer’ as the bad guy du jour, all the while doing so unencumbered by anything approximating solid evidence to support this stance. As we might expect with the Russia-gate saga, to this day, no definitive proof of the hard-core forensic kind has been presented to identify exactly how the plane was shot down (was the missile launched from the air or from the ground?), much less who actually perpetrated the act (was it the anti-Russian Ukrainian military, the pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine, or the Russians themselves?) Again, to this day, the questions as to whether the plane was deliberately targeted (was it a false-flag attack?, or did it just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time), also remain unanswered.

MH-17 memorial for the Waltz family from Neerkant village, June 15, 2015. (Pieter Deurne, Wikipedia)

As noted, the downing of MH-17 cost the lives of 38 Aussies, and the fallout from the tragedy – to say nothing of the way the disaster was politicized in order to serve the broader geopolitical objectives of the Beltway Bedlamites and their apparatchiks at home along with their counterparts in other Western nations – was especially pronounced Down Under. Our then Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who took to sculling the Washington Kool-Aid by asserting it was Putin himself who was “personally responsible” for the disaster, was especially bolshie in his reaction.

Ahead of Putin’s visit to this country in November 2014 for the G20 meeting in Brisbane that year, Abbott threatened to “shirt-front” the Russian president over the issue when they officially met up. Whilst this made for great headlines here and abroad, it did nothing to arrest his slide in the opinion polls, which one can reasonably surmise was at the time in the back of his mind. All in all, coming from a national leader on the world stage, this unprecedented, petulant outburst was something to behold.

But such was the fervor of the times regarding MH-17, and more broadly, the anti-Russian sentiment that prevailed earlier in the year over Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine in the aftermath of America’s bespoke coup d’état. Clearly Abbott’s desire to leverage the public outrage here in Australia that accompanied the tragedy and to ingratiate himself with the Bedlamites far outweighed any obligation that might’ve routinely accompanied a more measured diplomatic response. (It was after all to no avail; Abbott’s hold on the Aussie “premiership” was itself ‘shirt-fronted’ about a year after making this comment, being successfully challenged for the leadership by the present PM Malcolm Turnbull.)

It should further be noted that many folks – mostly after the fact – justified the removal of the then Ukrainian government because it was irredeemably corrupt. This of course is a specious and convenient argument – a ‘justification’ that makes frequent cameos in the annals of regime change – partly so in this case because there’s little evidence the replacement regime has been any less corrupt.

But this raises an altogether different, arguably more important consideration: If Uncle Sam had removed every last one of the countless client tyrants he’s had on his imperial dance card over the decades on the sole basis of their ethical, moral and/or legal standards of governance, adherence to democratic principles, and/or general political probity, it’s fair to surmise the geopolitical terrain might look as different today as the lunar landscape does to an as yet still pristine portion of the Amazonian rainforest. And the U.S. might still retain – and be able to credibly lay claim to – some of the moral capital it had accrued by war’s end in 1945, which few would argue it has now all but frittered away.

Of course if we really want to push the envelope herein invoking moral relativism, we only need consider that – notwithstanding what it says on the box – America itself is hardly a bastion of “ethical, moral and/or legal standards of governance, [adherence to] democratic principles, and/or general political propriety.” Its ‘unblemished’ track record of thuggery and skullduggery implementing regime change on every continent except the Great White Patch on the “backside” of the Big Blue Ball is ample evidence of that. This is without even referencing its performance closer to home drawing on such benchmarks! It’s a “practice what you preach” thing!

A piece of the wreckage from Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down over eastern Ukraine On July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people on board.

Further, there was and remains no smoking gun evidence linking Russia or the Eastern Ukrainian, pro-Russian separatists to the MH-17 shoot-down, and therefore no sound rationale for Washington accusing either of complicity in this crime without ponying up with said evidence. If anything, the longer the dog-not-barking question of why the U.S. refused to release all of the forensic evidence and ‘intel’ related to the shoot-down remains unanswered, the more we should rightfully suspect any findings by the MH-17 investigation team (if they ever see the light of day) – one it has to be emphasized, suspiciously included representatives from the at least equally suspect Kiev regime.

Moreover, for the U.S. to have imposed a further regimen of economic sanctions as a consequence without at least awaiting the outcome of the official investigation spoke further volumes about Washington’s deeper game-plan vis-à-vis Ukraine and ultimately, Russia itself. And it would appear we are now seeing that “game-plan” come to a fruition of sorts. Again, to underscore all of this, in one of Parry’s last substantive analyses of the Ukraine situation back in June last year, he summed a decidedly more coherent reality for us all.

“As the New York Times instructed us’ he observed in 2015, ‘there was no coup in Ukraine….no U.S. interference…and there weren’t even that many neo-Nazis. And the ensuing conflict wasn’t a resistance [movement] among Yanukovych’s supporters to his illegal ouster; no, it was ‘Russian aggression’ or a ‘Russian invasion.’” Parry didn’t spare the horses:

And for anyone whose “blowback antennae” are attuned to such matters, we cannot escape one abiding reality regarding the MH-17 disaster: If the putsch-meisters of the Potomac had minded their own business from the off and left well enough alone in Ukraine, irrespective of the cause of the shoot-down and who was responsible, we do know around three hundred innocent people would still be going about their business, and we wouldn’t be having this ‘conversation’. Four years later this is a reality I’ve yet to hear voiced by anyone in the MSM or in the upper echelons of Western governments. [My emphasis].

From Nobel Peace Prize to Imperial Warmonger

Last but not least, consider the following. For this writer, it remains incomprehensible that a U.S. State Department official – in this case the aforementioned Ms Nuland (aka The Maidan Cookie Monster) – would seemingly act in such a brazenly undiplomatic manner in bringing about this coup, a reality that as we’ve seen independent media folks like Robert Parry were at pains to bring to wider attention. It is in this instance particularly that the “he who lies first, lies best” maxim really comes to the fore.

Yet there can be no doubt that Nuland initiated this action with Obama’s full knowledge, with it being as much, if not more so, Obama’s mess as it is Nuland’s and her neocon cronies. Well might we say, “cue Harry Truman’s “the buck stops here!”

Of equal or greater concern herein is this. I’m sure I’m not the only one who noted with considerable bewilderment and dismay, the Kiev regime’s deployment – again with the full knowledge, approval indeed encouragement of the regime renovators in Washington – of extreme neo-Nazi forces in facilitating its rise to power from the off, and enforcing since the coup its brutal, illegitimate rule. As noted earlier, they are again getting their second wind.

Given the neoconservatives well-documented vise-grip on U.S. foreign policy in general, and their role in engineering said coup in particular – especially that of the Nuland/Kagan/ex-PNAC factions and their fellow travelers in the U.S. Congress such as McCain, who number amongst them some of the most prominent, so-called “American friends of Israel” – I’m at something of a loss as to how best to explain the glaring disconnect herein.

Of course America’s foreign policy “initiatives” over the decades have always embraced an “end justifies the means” precept; only the most naïve or ill-informed would deny this. But for most objective observers – even those of us all too familiar with the CIA’s notorious Operation Paperclip, or its equally infamous Operation Gladio, wherein the U.S. actively recruited under-the-radar not-so-rehabbed former Nazis and extreme right wing elements to fight on any number of fronts the Cold War against the Soviets – this is breaking new ground in its embrace of the precept. Prima facie, this has to represent another glaring WTF ‘mo’ in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Geopolitics makes strange bedfellows, one might reasonably conclude! And transforms Nobel Peace Prize winners into imperial warmongers!

Or is it possible I’m just missing something obvious here? How are all these “American friends of Israel,” either inside or outside of the Capitol ‘tent’, able to reconcile their on-going support of a regime utilizing such forces – whose pernicious ideology being synonymous with rabid anti-Semitism would one imagines be totally abhorrent to Jewish folks and non-Jews alike – under any circumstances?

As it turns out, the so-called “friends” have been bending butt over backwards since the coup denying, playing down, or completely ignoring this “disconnect”. It is only begrudgingly and belatedly they – along with their hacks, flacks and lackeys in the MSM – were able to bring themselves to concede there has been and remains any such neo-Nazi involvement in Ukraine, much less acknowledge any such “disconnect”.

Another key question here is this. How does the all powerful AIPAC and various Jewish/Israel lobby groups and affiliated bodies feel about their “American friends” precipitating and engaging in regime change missions that involve the use and on-going embrace of neo-Nazi forces? Is this just some fuzzy ‘post-modern’ perversion of realpolitik at work here, and I’m simply too naive to understand what the hell is going on and what the end-game might be? And now that the neo-Nazi ‘natives’ are becoming increasingly restless as noted — their frustration with their nominal patrons within the present regime’s hierarchy reaching boiling points — it’ll doubtless make for interesting times ahead.

All this of course without considering the added reality of these extreme right-wing factions possibly combining forces and cozying up in a Nazi/fascist/white supremacist group hug cum love-fest with radical jihadist/Islamic militant groups in what could likely shape up to be an exceedingly bloody counter-coup, along with the equally likely prospects of the Ukrainian economy imploding in the interim, or at least in the wake of the turmoil induced by any such coup!

Former CIA Director James Woolsey admitting on national television that the United States routinely meddles in other countries’ elections.

On these matters alone, I’m prepped nonetheless to be enlightened as to how/when anything good is likely to come out of America’s color revolution and regime renovation experiment in this part of the geopolitical landscape. And when it comes to the situation in Ukraine, one that has emanated directly from America’s interference in its political affairs in 2014, well might we ask of the aforementioned, former CIA chief spook Woolsey: How’s that ‘[we] only [do it] for a very good cause [and] in the interests of democracy’ thing workin’ out for ya Jimbo?’

Yet whilst these are just some of the reality checks needed in order to assemble a measure of veracity and insight regarding all things Ukraine, such “checks” one imagines are, and will remain for sometime, asynchronous with the narratives disseminated via Washington’s anti-Putin, anti-Russian “brochure.”

And one final point if I may. If Putin and his Kremlin gremlins did indeed do some kind of a dodgy deal with Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election in order to get him across the line ahead of Hillary Clinton – the only story that seems to capture the attention of the MSM mavens these days – it would be fair to say that the otherwise estimable Russian president and his beloved Motherland are getting well and truly shafted. Maybe Putin isn’t as clever as we give him credit for? To be so artfully duped by a dope like The Trumpster? Oh, the ignominy of it all!

Yet, all that aside, wouldn’t many of us just love to hear what the estimable and dutifully righteous Mr Parry might’ve had to say about more recent and possible developments in the country that interestingly – according to Dutch historian Kees Boterbloem — was affectionately known back in the day as “Little Russia”?

But of course that’s not going to happen. I can only hope this missive in some small – if not (ahem) short – measure, passes for the next best thing!

Post navigation

76 comments for “All Fire and Fury in Ukraine”

Roger Milbrandt

March 7, 2018 at 3:49 am

One of the most conspicuous differences between Robert Parry and Greg Maybury is that Parry did not pretend to be more literate than he actually was.
Maybury does. One feature of this failing is Maybury’s word choice. If superficial acquaintance with the meanings of a large number of words constitutes a large vocabulary then Maybury has a large vocabulary. However, skillful writers know something more than the dictionary definitions of the words they use: they know also when it is appropriate to use them. Maybury, too often, does not.
Here are three examples, with the misused words in capital letters: (1) “As history INDELIBLY reminds us”; (2) “that situation to all intents prevails, with few HARBOURING any optimism things are going to get better anytime soon”; (3) “one that rarely BUBBLES far from the surface.” There are dozens of others.
I see that Maybury is quite knowledgable and could likely write a solid article of about one-third the length of the item to which I am responding if he focused wholly on the succinct, lucid communication of his knowledge and thought.
By the way, I never criticize the writing styles of writers with whom I disagree; I expect them to write badly. Maybury is a different case.

G’Day Roger, Since my style is not your “cup of char” old son, I’ll spare you anymore of my own words. I’ll let the great Aldous Huxley do the talking for me.

“The soul of wit may become the body of untruth. However elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation. On such a theme one can be brief only by omission and simplification. [This might] help us to understand — but help us, in many cases, to understand the wrong thing; for our comprehension may be only of the abbreviator’s neatly formulated notions, not of the vast, ramifying reality from which these notions have been so arbitrarily abstracted.” Aldous Huxley, 1958

I think my work here be done eh? What say you comrade? Hope you have a nice day. GM

dots

March 6, 2018 at 6:11 pm

Famely of Krypniks. Sadomskiy Vladimir and Bronya is planing to rob Krypniks in the future and even kill them. Evgeniy is also looking for the problem against Krypnik. Krypnik must wacht himself!

Lois Gagnon

March 5, 2018 at 6:13 pm

G’day Greg! I’ve been wondering where you went. Haven’t seen you on OpEd News for a long time. Good to see you here. I always enjoy reading your essays.

I watched Ukraine on Fire online about a month ago. As always, Oliver Stone doesn’t disappoint. He’s another brave soul like Robert Parry.

Fighting this imperialist war machine will take all of us working together. Thanks for your great work.

Many thanks Lois for the feedback. Yes I’ve been quiet the past few months. With due respect toward those with a disability and of a certain age, seems I’ve been busier than a one-armed osteopath in an old people’s home!

No I don’t know Caitlin J but I do know of her to be sure. She most def has been making a name for herself, and I for one am v pleased that another of my compatriots (there are a few others to be sure) is making a noise and getting noticed, especially where it counts. Though we’ve not communicated directly, we are connected on Facebook, and I have frequently reposted her material. I admire greatly her ‘bolshie’, take no prisoners, (sometimes) in-yer-face approach, though admittedly this is not really my style.

Yet I totally understand her take on things; we’re singing from the same bully pulpit. From what I can gather, she seems to be about the same age as my own daughter, and in a not dissimilar situation in respect of work, family, life etc. If I was of her generation, I’d be just as pissed! Meaning our generation have let them down badly. I fear for the future of her generation and the one after, precisely because of what she and I and many others identify as what’s up ahead after we’ve gone. Bottom line: We need more Caitlin Johnsons!!! The more the bloody merrier I say! Doesn’t matter where they hail from! Once again thanks. Take care, Best GM

R Davis

March 4, 2018 at 7:46 pm

As Robert Parry says – ‘they’ are the orchestrators.
The Big Question is:
Who stole the gold of the Ukraine?
Was the gold taken before, during, or after?
The Latest Heist: US Quietly Snatched the Ukraines Gold Reserves – 33 tons of Ukrainien gold out of the country & back to the vaults of the US federal Reserve.
Funny that.
It’s all a game for ruthless & murderous international crime syndicated – pretenders out for a good time & what they can get.
These criminals need to be hunted down & brought to justice – is all.

Martin - Swedish citizen

March 4, 2018 at 3:28 pm

To add a question then,
the notion of a likely extreme right counter-coup supported by jihadists seems counter-intuitive. What speaks in favour of such a turn of events?

I understand that jihadists have taken part in the Donbass. Many from northern Caucasus, if I am rightly informed.
But many other nationalities are there as well. Why would a coup by the extreme right serve Jihadi interests?

The extreme right have an influence as it is but there are other forces as well, right? I did not hear before about a substantial risk for n extreme right coup. What speaks for such a development?

We must be careful in making a clear distinction regarding our ‘friends’ of Israhell who are NOT true Torah reading Jews but rather Satanic, Talmudist Kazhars who, along with their dual Israelis in Congress and in the White House, continue to commence their rabid and pathological hatred upon Russia through the ZIONIST foot soldiers Nuland, McCain and now MSM and their equally ZIONIST propaganda puppets.

ZIONISM did this. The Bolsheviks hate Russia. ZIONISM is a deadly political ideology that now occupies the US government on every level. Israhell is the problem and will continue to be as long as the European Ashkenazi land grabbers and the apartheid, genocidal state they serve remain in power.

I’m not at all surprised that the Zionists placed the neonazi regime in power in the Ukraine. Obama more than obeyed his master’s. A master manipulator and sociopath. The Zionists hate the goyim. That’s all Americans are to them as well as the true Jewish people being exploited for ZIONIST geopolitical HEGEMONY. They are psychopaths and if the American people continue to allow the US to be a vassal state of Israhell (we can start by bringing to attention the current dual Israelis in Congress, Schumer, Sanders, Feinstein, Cardin,etc) and forcing them to RESIGN. We can demand that we fight no more wars for Israhell as Israhell had done nothing for Americans other than endless war and taxpayer money spent on Nuland type misadventures. We can demand that no more American taxpayer money go to support this life stealing parasitic state.

If Israhell were GONE all of this would stop. Without the ZIONIST faction that makes up our shadow Spooks, media and Congressional sponsorship, wars would end, Palestine restored, diplomatic relations with Russia restored, America given back to its rightful owner…the American people.

I’ve not seen this film, nor the Putin interviews but I’ll be doing that today. If I can find them.

I miss Mr. Parry. I have had a hard time dropping by because it’s a reminder that one of the most essential independent voices is gone….
Great read, thank you.

Matthew Johnson

March 4, 2018 at 2:36 pm

I keep saying it. We need to stop distinguishing between neoconservatives and “liberal interventionists.” Liberal interventionists ARE neocons. The word neoconservative was created to describe democrats in the 1960s and 1970s who were opposed to the anti vietnam war movement. People like Dick Cheyney are just conservatives.

G’Day Matthew, You have a point there m’man, one which I’ve always felt was the case deep down but for whatever reason pulled back from making any distinction. Indeed, the next time I reference these folks, I’ll compose a suitable sentence or two to that effect. Thx for the feedback. Best, GM

I am an avid reader of CN and generally agree with most of the writers What is noticeable, however is we don’t see thoughtful critiques the are critical. I must say I cannot recall many, or any, such critiques, but would hope when they do appear readers do not immediately call them trolls which then precipitates exchanges of insults. I know it is tempting to do so.

Since I have to get ready for church, my addiction to CN makes me have to rush.

Joe Tedesky

March 4, 2018 at 12:21 pm

I agree Herman we on this board need to be open to diverse opinions. Joe

Realist

March 4, 2018 at 2:49 am

Okay, now the hackers are doing their disappearing act on this site and not just ICH. Just attempted to post a lengthy response and it just vanished when I clicked on “post comment.” The green tag saying “your comment has been posted” appeared, but the text never did. Backing up does not retrieve it. No mention whatsoever of moderation, so that is not the problem now. Is this happening more widely?

Joe Tedesky

March 4, 2018 at 12:20 pm

I’ve had that happen, for that reason I always try to remember to copy what I wrote before hitting the post button or whatever. This is a friendly comment user site, but that moderation and the occasional disappearing of text is baffling to say the least. Probably space aliens, or the NSA space aliens are having a ball reading our comments that never get posted…I guess. Keep on keep’n on Realist. Joe

David G

March 4, 2018 at 12:34 pm

I’ve experienced the mysterious moderation, but not the total disappearing act.

Joe, when that happens, is the comment really gone forever, and does it work to just repost it (without multiple copies showing up)?

Joe Tedesky

March 4, 2018 at 1:02 pm

I don’t know, but over the years I have seen a couple to less than a few comments go to Starship Enterprise where I think Captain Kirk tells Mr Spock to read them before shredding them blasted un-American comments to shreds. Actually I’m as dumbfounded as the next guy David. Joe

Realist

March 4, 2018 at 3:25 pm

All the lost time adds up, since I could have been doing something useful during that half hour.

Andre

March 4, 2018 at 1:33 am

Very good article and silence from in the USA around this most blatant interference and regime change.
Covering everything up by falsities will not change the reality and problems, but ultimately lead to much worse problems, as have already developed in the Ukraine. Very little news about the huge numbers that have moved to Russia and the real numbers killed.
Oh, by the way Kees Boterbloem (last paragraph) is Dutch, not German).

I hadn’t seen the film and I was glad for the link. I went and watched the entire film before I came back to finish the article, and since I had to take breaks to fix dinner and eat, it took a long time.

I also want to say how much it moved me to see Bob Parry in the film. I still am mourning his loss and grieve that we have a loss a significant voice in truth telling.

G’day Miranda, Thanks for your comments, especially those about your reaction to seeing Bob in the doko! As you’d have gathered my own response was similar, as I’m sure it will be for many.

The following revelation may elicit a similar response from yourself and others, albeit vicariously. Back on December 22, just a day or two apparently before the first of his three strokes, Bob sent me an email in reply to an earlier greeting I’d forwarded to him and his family for the Yuletide. After the predictable responses in kind, the gist of his reply went like this:

“[B]y the way, I will be in Australia for a week or so in January, mostly to see one of my sons and two granddaughters who are visiting family…who live in Australia. I’m not sure exactly where you are but if you’re around Sydney perhaps we could meet for a drink.”

Not actually having met him before, I immediately responded in the affirmative, and was looking forward to pressing the flesh as it were. I did not hear anything more from him. Sadly my deep desire to finally meet the man — with all that might go with that — did not materialize. As they say, “not meant to be”. Best to you.

I’m just doing my thing Miranda. As I like to say, we need all hands on deck! Thinking about that ill-fated meeting, my take is less regret I did not get to meet Bob in person, but contentment I guess (if that’s the right word) I got to know him at all. And we have to move forward of course. Best, GM

Greg Maybury: Thanks for an informative review of the Ukraine conflict from an Aussie point of view. I haven’t seen the Oliver Stone documentary yet but I’ll put it on my list. The situation in Moldova seems to be heating up with the same American provocateurs involved(including Victoria Nuland).

G’day Mike, Thanks for your feedback. A couple of things by way of response to both your comments. To begin, I’m not a journalist, and I most certainly am not trying to “teach” anyone anything! Consequently I have a different, some might say, “totally unique” narrative approach, one hopefully characterized by an enticing measure of both flair and depth.

By definition, that “approach” necessitates more of a long-form treatment, and demands from readers a bit more effort. It’s a bit old school I guess; I grew up in an age where people’s attention spans were longer. Some people call it “slow journalism” and the like; there are other similar descriptions. (Google it if interested, and see what you come up with.)

To be sure it’s not for everybody, but nothing that anyone writes is “for everybody”. And fair enough old chap, my “approach” is not your cup of ‘char’, and you made that ‘chrystal’ in both your comments. I can live with that.

Yet for all “that”, it seems there are a few folk — including those who frequent Consortium News — who actually do appreciate it (enough to make the effort worth my while). So why don’t I just let them speak on my behalf? Check out the link below, and you can see for yourself.

….But mate, I’m telling you now: Be warned, it may be (ahem) “way too long” for you! ?

Best to you comrade. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, ‘n keep the aspidistra flying whilst you’re at it. GM ?

The US attack on Ukraine is a war crime, plain and simple. The US is the number one cause of war in the world. We are the premier war criminals of the planet.

Michael Kenny

March 3, 2018 at 12:10 pm

Since Oliver Stone has revealed himself to be more “Putinite” than Putin himself (!), I doubt if anyone will take his film seriously. Mr Maybury’s article is just the standard litany of pro-Putin propaganda lines. In the simple morality of everyday life, if you damage something belonging to someone else, aren’t you supposed to make good the damage you have caused? Thus, as a matter of common sense, if you postulate that the US provoked the fight in Ukraine, and I wouldn’t disagree with that, isn’t it for the US to put right the damage it has caused to Ukrainians’ human rights by driving Putin out of Ukrainian territory? Mr Maybury’s is preaching the same absurd argument we’ve all heard a thousand times: because A violated B’s rights, C is entitled to punish A by also violating B’s rights!

GM

March 3, 2018 at 12:05 pm

The Magnitsky story is an important element of all this. I lucked into an email address from which one can request a password for viewing The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes which is password protected on Vimeo.

An indiviual claiming to be one of the producers of the film posted an open invitation on twitter for individuals to see the banned documentary, and included his/her email address to contact to request access, which I immediately took him/her up on, and you should too.

torstein at piraya dot no

I strongly recommend to anyone interested that they give this a whirl.

G’Day GM, I agree with what you say about Magnitsky, and I’m glad it has been brought up for discussion herein. That said, given the scope and the implications of the story I avoided any discussion of this as it would have made my piece even longer, (something which may not have pleased at least one bloke herein!). In any event I felt it was something I needed to look in the context of another piece I’m planning on for later, which will focus on the broader “Russia-gate” Thing, and the media’s handling of it. As you would have noticed, the MSM has always been and remains for me a recurring topical touchstone in my writing (as it was for Bob to be sure).

Many thanks for this heads up on that video. I do recall trying to track it down a few months back but wasn’t able to, and then got sidetracked. And I think one needs to see this before you can begin to talk about it at length. I will check out this email address, and LYK how I go. But it’s off to work I go now. GM

GM

March 3, 2018 at 11:55 am

Ukraine ranked 102nd out of 190 in the 2017 World Press Freedom Index. That’s better than South Korea, though not better than Tunisia (97) or East Timor (98).

David G

March 3, 2018 at 12:52 pm

South Korea is actually ranked 63rd (out of 180, total) on that list, ahead of Ukraine.

It is a bit funny to need a German historian to verify that “Little Russia” was a term use for Ukraine in 19th century. In few minutes I have found that quotation: ““I tender my most heartfelt and inexpressible thanks for the precious information you gave me about Malorossiya and beg you not to stop sending me communications of that kind. I’m storing up things which I shall not publish before all the details are worked out… If my work ever comes out in print, it will be in a foreign language…” wrote Gogol to his mother from St Petersburg some time after he had left Ukraine.

Nicolas Gogol, or Mykola Hohol in Ukrainian, was raised speaking vernacular of Malorossiya which we would call Ukrainian, while being a loyal subject of Russian Tsar. But even writing to his mother he called their region “Malorossiya”. Accidentally, “ukraine” means “borderland” and diverse terms were used to name this region. I think that the idea for “Malorossiya” was copied from Polish language, as two large regions in Poland are called Wielkopolska = Great-o-Poland and Malopolska = Little-o-Poland. I stress that “o” is not a part of an adjective, alone, it turns the word into an adverb but here it binds an emotionally neutral compound noun. In Slavic languages, affection is expressed with endings that may be translated with English “little”.

Bob Van Noy

March 3, 2018 at 12:00 pm

Piotr Berman, thanks for that, I’ll add this and then be quiet.

Personally I knew nothing about Ukraine until I became aware of Victoria Nuland’s cookie distribution program and that reportage seemed “too strange”. Since then, much has happened and thanks to honest brokers, I think that some truth has emerged.

I’m finding just how intriguing The Ukraine is, really, for me, for the first time, and so far it has been stunning. I am now reading, in English, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn‘s book “Two Hundred Years Together” which I will link because it’s appropriate…

How neat that the cookies came in a package that also included five billion dollars!

Martin - Swedish citizen

March 3, 2018 at 6:15 pm

Piotr Berman,
Important point.
Since Ukraine was always a border area, it may, probably, be that Gogol’s mother tongue was not quite the same as that of Galicia or Volhynia – I think he was from near Poltava – it would one can infer have been much less coloured by Polish and much more by Russian, for one thing; and likewise Little Russia would not coincide with the areas now referred to as Ukraine.

Piotr Berman

March 3, 2018 at 10:41 pm

The “educated” or literary language is always different from regional dialects. I was told by an immigrant to USA from eastern Ukraine that people there speak a dialect (I forgot the name) that is like “Russian words with Ukrainian phonetics and grammar. The issue of “Ukrainians as a separate nation” is very complicated and “a can of worms”.

What American/European meddlers neglected is the issue of economy. Ukraine is much more complementary with Russia than with EU, and the nationalism of previous years and the consequences of the coup/new government are that is is kind of nowhere. EU has a lot of troubles and has neither fiscal zeal nor deep sympathy to actually bring Ukraine into the fold. War, even if not particularly bloody as wars go, vacuums the budget. Trade wars with Russia eliminated important export markets and increased energy cost. European markets open at a very slow pace. Since there are (still) a lot of people in Ukraine, you cannot shore up the economy with foreign aid. War and legal instability deter foreign investments that could otherwise be attracted to cheap labor.

What political practitioners and theorists of the West ignore is that it is intellectually difficult to improve the economy, and when the political discourse is diverted to nationalism and war, mundane issues like economy and legal system suffer. This is one reason why free weapons for Ukraine are a poisoned gift — it strengthens nationalists demagogues which makes folks on the receiving end, non-nationalists and Russian speakers, plus everybody displeased with the degraded level of leaving quite grumpy. The current political system may survive for quite a while because of loosing 10-15% of population, making “western Ukrainians” a majority and because of repressive system that outlaws “pro-Russian” and leftist (“pro-Communist”) activities, but it cannot thrive.

Martin - Swedish citizen

March 4, 2018 at 1:49 am

Totally agree.
Very good you mention all of this.
The present regime seems doomed to collapse. The dire state of the economy, corruption first of all. A third Maidan. The ideology of imposing western Ukrainian language and “culture” on the eastern and southern half , including the cult of Bandera, and attempting to force reforms from the outside, and cut century old ties with Russia is also hopeless. Isn’t this the fate of practically all us regime change operations. Europe has lost a lot of moral goodwill in this process.

Martin - Swedish citizen

March 4, 2018 at 6:42 am

The pidgin is called surzhyk.

Realist

March 4, 2018 at 2:38 am

Dumb question probably, but why was Russia never considered for eventual membership in the EU? I know it was rejected when it inquired about joining NATO because Washington badly needed to retain it as an enemy. If Russia were at least some sort of associate member in the EU, it could continue to freely trade with Ukraine and all of its Asian partners, no one would have to cut ties persisting over generations and the United States wouldn’t have to make military threats that have everyone in the world disturbed. In fact, what objection should anyone, except Washington in its endless pursuit of world hegemony, have against the Chinese OBOR Initiative of free trade from Lisbon to Vladivostok via a “New Silk Road?” It only makes common sense, as Eurasia is one common landmass. Washington is just being a dog in the manger in trying to block Nordstream2, as if you would pay twice the price for its LNG to thwart the Russians.

Europe seems to me to be mucking up its future royally by kowtowing to American policy at every level. All the wars in the Middle East and the attendant mass migrations are balkanizing European culture, establishing ghettos of restive minorities in your midst and creating conflicts that may persist for generations (or, if you view the United States as a model, probably forever). The European Union was meant to UNIFY Europe, the warmongering policies imposed by Washington are rending it (at least that’s the view from this outsider). Moreover, the overarching Russophobia imposed by Washington makes it far less likely that Europe will share in the bounty of Siberian natural resources that the West covets (and needs). Those resources will go to China, into whose arms the Americans have chased the Russians. The smartest thing Trump said in the campaign was “I like to make (business) deals, not war.” That all changed after he was rolled by the neocons once in office. Think of all the contracts the West could have with Russia if the threats stopped.

The current policies are thoroughly illogical and self-destructive. I’m half-German with a compulsively analytical mind (the rest are equally organised parts Dane, Kashube and English). Surely, you Germans must see it the way I do. No? Merkel never had the will to disagree with Washington when it was essential to the future of her country and Western values. At least Schroeder had the guts to say nein to Washington’s contrived wars of aggression in the Middle East. It seems to me, the EU will change course and ease these tensions before the world ignites yet again only when given effective new leadership in Berlin (Yes, I’ meddling!). Britain is the 51st state, don’t look for leadership there. Everyone else west of the Visegrad countries just plays follow the leader.

Bob Van Noy

March 4, 2018 at 10:21 am

Many thanks to both of you for this exchange. It really helps all of us to sort out the complexity involved…

G’day Piotr, Many thanks for this considered response. As noted earlier to another reader, one of the great joys of doing what I do — especially here at Consortium where readers get an opp to say something — is that the contributor gets to engage with them should they wish to. And in doing so, one learn things as well about the topic at hand. And herein you have provided a valuable perspective, on Ukraine. Best to you, GM.

Bob Van Noy

March 3, 2018 at 11:12 am

G’Day Greg Maybury, I’m so very happy to read you again and especially here. Welcome!

Nat, you’re on a roll this Saturday morning…

Greg, there is so much here but as I scan it, it reminds me of a refresher course on The Truth.
Thank you for reminding us that there is a dense accurate alternative reality that is not allowed broad passage into American Journalism and History. History, a Living Thing to be sought out and assembled into something resembling The Truth and with committed Teachers, Journalists and Readers; it will always have a place and time.

I’m indeed honored to be included. Many Thanks!

mike k

March 3, 2018 at 10:50 am

It’s good to review facts already known to most readers of this blog, but the piece was way too long.

Bob Van Noy

March 3, 2018 at 11:28 am

mike k, remember that this is a totally unique forum and widely read so as it is sought out by a broader audience it will be appropriate to repeat what Robert Parry and, in this case, Oliver Stone, have previously reported to try to “break through” what appears as indifference. In an honest free press environment, with a bigger microphone, this reportage would have created much verbal dialogue.

What I personally admire here is that we have found a like and valued voice from the other side of the world!; an invaluable resource.

mike k

March 3, 2018 at 1:35 pm

Brevity is especially useful for those new to these ideas. Being verbose is not effective teaching.

G’Day Bobster, You’re the man. Long time no hear! I must admit it’s been me that’s been a bit quiet lately. Some of us have to work for a living, which may or may not apply to your good self! As always you’re very generous and gracious with your support, but rest assured of the following. Regardless of whose direction in which it is travelling — I’m mos def an ardent advocate of that adage: “Appreciation is a wonderful thing; it makes what is excellent in others, belong to us as well”. Stay cool brother, and rest assured of this too: Now that the dust has settled I’m back with a vengeance! And especially now that the redoubtable Mr P is no longer with us, we need all hands on deck, here and wherever, now and whenever! What say you comrade!? G

The trouble with a one of documentary, book or other piece of info is that the American public (and elsewhere) are so brainwashed and ignorant, that this kind of work just washes over their heads. In the first place, its unlikely that the US public knows anything about the Ukraine, where it is what it is and most likely couldn’t care less anyway. They have been informed by the huge tide of MSM of what they need to know and anything that challenges this perception is an irritant like a lone fly that has found its way into their house. The fact that a large percentage of people still firmly believe that Iraq and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 tells you something about the mind set of the US public. Of course, its the same in other Western countries. Lets face it folks, were are 99% stupid so what hope is there?

Joe Tedesky

March 3, 2018 at 2:39 pm

Boy John you nailed it, and you are right to how the Western public is in the dark with this Ukraine business among other things. If I ask my fellow Americans to if they have ever heard of Victoria Nuland all I get is blank stares. If I describe the East West ideology divide which exist in Ukraine then my fellow Americans shuts down the conversation, because basically they don’t care a hoot about Kiev, but instead they worry more about the taxes they pay to the Empire of war.

In Sweden, and Europe I gather, the public was and is very hostile to the war on Iraq. The media and/or governments then we’re more independent.
Not so with the Ukraine. Since that time only propaganda in the msm and politicians diminished to repeaters of US transmissions. The public, to a large part, now in the state you describe for the US. It is sad.
I may be submitting to wishful thinking, but there is a sense that more and more are waking up to slowly realising the extent of the mirage world painted by those in power.

G’day John, Thank you for your insightful comment. You’ve hit the nail where its inventor intended to be sure. With Trump each day it seems it be like, “Here we go again!”…More “fire and fury” from Old Faithful (president) Bluff’n Bluster. Whenever we think there’s nothing more he could possibly do or say to surprise, offend, or shock us, the man rarely disappoints, stepping up to the plate every time.

I’m beginning to think that it was providence or fate or karma (or a close ‘relative’) that prevailed in his successful bid for the presidency, certainly much more so than the Russians. All so as to remind Americans daily of what they’ve allowed themselves and their country to become.

Not that I’m suggesting you were doing so as you didn’t even mention him, but the White House incumbent I don’t think can or should be blamed entirely for the state of affairs you’ve accurately described, which some folk appear to be earnestly positing. Not by a long shot from the grassy knoll as it were!

And simply because it’s America we’re talking about here, given it’s self proclaimed “exceptional and indispensable” status on the world stage (especially since 1945), it’s not now, nor has it ever been, just about America.

Put another way, “America, it not just all about you!” The imperial provocations the U.S. has been engaging in in Ukraine (harking back to the central topic of my article), are placing the whole world at risk. And for what I ask? This is irresponsible and unacceptable. That’s putting it mildly! And that’s just referencing Ukraine!

Joe Tedesky

March 4, 2018 at 2:20 am

The first time I heard someone say “America, it not just all about you!” it was 1971 Toulon France a French student said that to us U.S. Navy sailors. Back then we were ‘Nixon Assasins’, but one sunny day an old French lady in Cannes treated my friends and I to a few rounds of beer in her little tavern down by the piers…so people are people, but yes American hegemony, ah not so much.

Realist

March 3, 2018 at 3:53 am

The maniacs in Washington certainly must know that, if they are successful in instigating an offensive by Kiev against the separatists in the Donbass using all the shiny new anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles given to them, the Russians will either have to run from the conflict (which they will not do) or start shooting back at the NATO “advisors” and mercenaries with their own sophisticated weapons. The first Yank blood to be spilled in the name of “Ukrainian freedom” will see a declaration of war against Russia dropped on Trump’s desk for signature. We can’t say the Congress has been avoiding its warmaking powers in the Ukraine affair. They have been lovin’ every second of it, led by that dynamic duo of Schumer and Schiff–two names that will live in infamy should they get what they want. Plenty of blame to go around on this one, Democrats, but any way you slice it, your party’s over once the nukes fly.

Joe Tedesky

March 3, 2018 at 2:49 pm

Realist what you described must be looked at from the eyes of a Russian general. Everyday this Russian general must sit and watch to calculate to just how exactly the Kiev thugs with their American made weapons are building up their offensive positions, while these Kiev crooks cry defensively to the world about Putin’s Russian aggression. These Russians generals aren’t commissioned to be that much concerned about trade sanctions, as much as they are trained to watch to how enemy combatants are formulating around their Russian borders. These Russian generals must be more advised to how much the Kiev bastards have increased their troop levels, not to leave out Kiev’s increases where Kiev has accrued a large arsenal of deadly armament. When I think about this I can only see that one Russian general who has had enough, and then hope that Russian general is more respectful to Putin than he is to his Nationalism of his beloved Russian country.

G’day Joe, Thx VM for your considered response. As always, you hit the mark. I hadn’t seen that NEO piece before, so will check it out. I’ve tried subscribing to the NEO newsletter a number of times in the past, following the instructions on their site. But I never receive anything. I recall even once trying to contact them directly but no joy! I love the site, but because of the issues as outlined I miss quite a bit. Might try again. Best to you mate.

Joe Tedesky

March 4, 2018 at 1:59 am

G’day to you Mr Maybury, and I’m glad you liked the link and it wasn’t offensive due to I wanted to jump on the bandwagon with your theme. So that’s good for me.

If I am to read you rightly, and nothing against NEO, but here at consortiumnews is a more than adequate place for you to reach us readers of current events…but, there I go again with my forward ness.

Lastly anything we all can do to help lessen the tension being raised these days on the geopolitical sphere, and as you well know that this message needs broadcasted more loudly & clearly to a lot of American mainland citizens we must all do our part…. so please Greg continue on.

Joe, I rarely take “offence”. One of the most enjoyable things about writing something that resonates with people is the feedback. It’s not an ego thing by any means, as I also always open myself up to learning as much as I impart from those who take the time to engage in informed, coherent, and respectful dialogue. I try, time permitting, to respond in kind to that effort. If that sounds like a “keep those cards and letters rolling right in” kinda thing, then you’ve got the gist.

A heads up for yourself and others: keep a keen eye our for my next project. It’s inspired by Philip Nelson’s soon to be published book on the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, due for release on April 17. Nat has asked for the inside running on my piece, which I hope to have completed by April 4, the 50th Anniversary of King’s murder. And I’ve given him the nod.

FYI, a few weeks ago, at my request Phil sent me an advance copy of the book for the purpose of writing the piece. I’ve done this sort of thing for himself and others as well before. The title alone (see below) will give you a hint of what’s coming down the pike.

Based on all currently available evidence, documents and information, I believe it is the most thorough and accurate account of this pivotal event to date. As to who orchestrated and executed this monstrous plot, we can mos def say: it was not James Earl Ray!

Greg what brought me to ‘the Consortium’ was a linked article written by Robert Parry about JFK. So your bringing a book review about MLK is right in the same field of play, since I look upon the 60’s as the Assassination Era.

Almost every American I know doesn’t know that a Memphis jury in 1999 found the Martin Luther King assassination was a government hit job. I for a longtime have thought that LBJ was behind the JFK plot, and I truly believe that Hoover was given the go ahead to bump MLK off, as they did. RFK had to go, because too much was at stake leaving him a potential for the White House, plus JFK by many accounts took a bullet for Bobby. There were many assassinations in those days, and if you count the international assassinations along with the American ones then it becomes very overwhelming to how deadly our Deep State was at that time….lots to write books about for sure.

So Greg make sure to keep us posted on your latest works, because you are a joy to read. Joe

Joe (and interested others), A quick response to your “Era of Assassinations” post above and your point about the 1999 MLK civil trial. Phil covers that and more in the new book. Of course Nelson’s first two books ‘deal with the real deal’ that was LBJ. I’ve also written articles/reviews of these books.

Sam F

March 5, 2018 at 8:09 pm

Indeed the warmongers intend a wider conflict with Russia, and hope to trap Trump into attacking Russia, which must defend Donbass without hitting US trigger forces. The US admin may not seek conflict there, but if it allows movement of US trigger forces into attack formations it is allowing itself to be trapped.

The article pretends not to see how zionists “feel” about tricking the US to use “neo-Nazi forces” to threaten Russia, but the warmongers are all zionists (Kagan, Nuland, et al), and they control US mass media and elections. They want the US to attack Russia in Ukraine so that Israel can continue its land theft in the Mideast.

geeyp

March 3, 2018 at 3:22 am

Well Greg, it is a good documentary and you know, you gotta do what you gotta do. That was a fantastic read. It is late here; I read it as a nice, thorough piece and synopsis of this ongoing situation. Don’t sell President Trump short on these regime change fiascos. He hasn’t done any of these types of shenanigans yet, and it seems the last President was there to make so many of them happen. It was, as in many of these situations, somewhat shocked to view this movie and shortly after I watched, Mr. Parry passed away. Keep up the legacy, if you will, and keep fighting the good and right fight.

geeyp

March 3, 2018 at 3:27 am

I meant I was shocked after seeing the movie (not shocked from the movie) that it was the last time that I would see Mr. Parry.

Comments are closed.

Fundraising Goal $30,000

We have $24,200 left to go to reach our Spring Fundraising goal. Thank you for your important support!